Let's see Vet, I NEVER said, and in fact made a point of saying that I didn't believe every aggression or behavior problem was a result of vaccines, but that it should be thrown into the possibilities when looking into why a dog "snaps" or suddenly changes behavior. Over vaccinating may certainly be a cause or something to consider with the dog, even if it is only considered that a person doesn't further vaccinate a dog with issues in hopes to not exacerbate the problem.
Nor did I say Dodds said not to vaccinate, nor did I say not to vaccinate, I said OVERVACCINATING:
No you didn't. You jump in against every vaccination (and commercial dog food) every chance you get. And then when you are called on it, you back a way real quick and try to claim that isn't what you said. We've had this almost exact same argument before. You are repeating yourself. Thats were I get that you have an agenda. You remind me of a control freak fundamentalist Christian (or Muslim, either or) who is convinced the entire world is going to hell unless they practice their religion the exact way you say they have to.
And I never said that the parvo vaccinations shed disease into the environment but that they are capable of VACCINATING animals that come into contact with the vaccine shedding dog or feces.
Bullshit. If the virus shed into the environment is capable of VACCINATING an animal, then it has to be capable of INFECTING that animal. Again, we've argued about this before. Stop and think about Parvo for a minute. If you have an animal which recieves a parvo vaccine via injection----remember the normal viral pathway is fecal-oral, meaning that they have to EAT viral particles which then populate the intestine the following has to happen:
1: these vaccine associated viral particles have to move to the intestine through the blood stream
2: they have to cross from the blood vessels into he mucosal lining of the intestine (getting past mucosal immune defense mechanisms--which wil work both ways)
3: once in the intestine, they populate the villi of the intestinal lining
4: they must reproduce
5: they must be shed out of the intestine in the feces
6: a dog has to come into contact with viral particles and ingest them Orally
Now for this VACCINATION claim you are making to happen.
7: once ingested the viral particles have to set up shop in the intestinal villi.
8: they must reproduce
9: they must get past intestinal defense mechanisms
10: they create a viremic state in the newly infected animal, where they will affect other parts of the immune system
11: this dog now has have an appropriate immune response to fight off the INFECTION----they've got a virus that is in their body reproducing, causing an immune response. Thats an infection. There is no two ways about it.
Now don't get me wrong, I don't think its impossible, but its a multistep process that to me seems a bit far fetched. What you are spouting doesn't seem to me to take into any consideration the physiology of the virus interaction with the animal. Its as if there is this magical happening when a dog looks at another dog who's been vaccinated. its not, its a multistep process.
You have a lot of anecdotal opinions on topics, please don't twist or exaggerate what I said to fit your agenda. I found a couple psychological (human) references in studies and articles with demylination and behavior changes in people. It really is not that far out there, especially if you consider that just like with people, some dogs may have more of a reaction to vaccines than others. Again, it IS something to consider.[/color]
This really was a fine example of you twisting words and you yourself using anecdotal opinion, not to mention pretty irrelevant to what I DID say (not what you portrayed me as saying)!! LOL :
I did? Where are your references if you found them? Like I said before, MS is probably the most well known demylenation disease of humans. They do have psychological changes, but it occurs after loss of peripheral nerve function---and like i said, often occurs secondarily as loss of function. You need to consider the function of myelin---which i am beginning to think you don't have a clue as to what it does. Myelin acts as an "insulation" for nerve fibers. Nerves as they demylinate, will conduct impulses slower, but they will still conduct impulses. As the disease causing demylination advances, it will cause loss of peripheral function first----because these distant nerves have the furthest to conduct and thus are most likely to be disrupted. Central function loss from demylination is a later occurance. If you have a dog with a significant demylination disease process, I doubt it seriously if you'd see loss of central function---ie a major change in behavior, without seeing loss of peripheral sensation---ie toe dragging, ataxia, loss of pain sensation during a physical exam, etc. It just doesn't make sense to phsyiologically.
Again, I will trust Dodds and Schultz who have worked for years in this field, hands on, and are respected, and who also are donating their time for at least the next 5 years to the Rabies Vaccine Challenge, over your narrow minded thinking. You can not say that they don't have a clue can you? Why would they volunteer that undertaking in the hopes of getting the 3year rabies vaccination pushed out to a longer period if they did not think that their was an important reason too? Why not just leave it at the 3years if vaccines are so harmless? It used to be every year, so three years was a definite improvement, must be all that anecdotal stuff they have come across in all their years in research, huh? Maybe you should take some time when you get a chance, and look at what is going on in the veterinary world. A lot of respected people are devoting a lot of time and energy to all this "anecdotal" stuff.
Honey, you make the mistake in that I really care what you think. Like I said before, you are a good member for this board in my opinion because you make people think. I personally don't like your overwhelm with poor references to prove your point game that you play. No where have I said Dodds wasn't doing research that didn't need to be done. I think what she is doing is a very, very good idea. The thing is you can't just randomly take the information as gospel---and I'm willing to bet Dr. Dodds will agree with this---because what is being done right now is the investigative stage. There is only anecdotal information. Scientific studies must be done to prove her IDEAS correct. There is no definitive proof just yet.
Copied from a post of mine in reply to you on the Vaccine thread:
Occurrence of severe gastroenteritis in pups after canine parvovirus vaccine administration: A clinical and laboratory diagnostic dilemma
Nicola DecaroCorresponding Author Contact Information, a, E-mail The Corresponding Author, Costantina Desarioa, Gabriella Eliaa, Marco Campoloa, Alessio Lorussoa, Viviana Maria, Vito Martellaa and Canio Buonavogliaa
aDepartment of Animal Health and Well-being, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine of Bari, Strada per Casamassima Km 3, 70010 Valenzano, Bari, Italy
Received 10 August 2006; revised 22 September 2006; accepted 12 October 2006. Available online 25 October 2006.
Abstract
A total of 29 faecal samples collected from dogs with diarrhoea following canine parvovirus (CPV) vaccination were tested by minor groove binder (MGB) probe assays for discrimination between CPV vaccine and field strains and by diagnostic tests for detection of other canine pathogens. Fifteen samples tested positive only for CPV field strains; however, both vaccine and field strains were detected in three samples. Eleven samples were found to contain only the vaccine strain, although eight of them tested positive for other pathogens of dogs. Only three samples were found to contain the vaccine strain without evidence of canine pathogens. The present study confirms that most cases of parvovirus-like disease occurring shortly after vaccination are related to infection with field strains of canine parvovirus type 2 (CPV-2) rather than to reversion to virulence of the modified live virus contained in the vaccine.
This abstract appears to confirm shedding, along with your theory that the vaccinated parvo puppy did not get it from the vaccine, but was more susceptible to it because he was recently vaccinated.
the study confirms what I bolded.
From Dr. Dodds:
From The Immune System and Disease Resistance, a paper by DR W Jean Dodds, DVM
" A recent examination of the risks posed by MLV vaccines concluded that they are intrinsically more hazardous than inactivated products. The residual virulence and environmental contamination resulting from the shedding of vaccine virus is a serious concern."
-------
http://www.peteducation.com/article.cfm?cls=2&cat=1648&articleid=962
You know whats damned funny? I cannot find this paper. In what journal was it published?
Shedding of vaccine agent
Vaccine virus may be found in the nasal secretions of dogs vaccinated intranasally. In addition, vaccine parvovirus is shed in the feces of vaccinated dogs, canine adenovirus-1 can be shed in the urine, and canine adenovirus-2 can be found in nasal secretions. These viruses are the vaccine forms of the virus; they do NOT revert back to the disease-causing strains.
---------
Again, its not a virulent strain. This means it will not cause disease in another animal. Thank you, you've contradicted what you were saying about vaccine associated viral shedding being capable of vaccinating other animals with your own post.
The Cornell Feline Health Center
College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University
& The American Association of Feline Practitioners
and the Academy of Feline Medicine Advisory Panel on Feline Vaccines
A second type of vaccine is the modified live-virus (MLV) vaccine (also referred to as an attenuated vaccine), which contains viruses that have been altered by various techniques, so that they no longer produce clinical disease. Viruses in these vaccines can replicate within the host and stimulate a rapid and excellent immune response. In some cases, vaccine virus may be shed from the vaccinated cat to infect other cats that may come in contact with the vaccinated cat. MLV vaccines should not be administered to pregnant cats.
I'd like it if you'd post this entire newsletter article. I looked on Cornell's website and was unable to find it. Thanks.